首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>PLoS Clinical Trials >Is there an omission effect in prosocial behavior? A laboratory experiment on passive vs. active generosity
【2h】

Is there an omission effect in prosocial behavior? A laboratory experiment on passive vs. active generosity

机译:亲社会行为有遗漏作用吗?被动与主动慷慨的实验室实验

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

We investigate whether individuals are more prone to act selfishly if they can passively allow for an outcome to be implemented (omission) rather than having to make an active choice (commission). In most settings, active and passive choice alternatives differ in terms of factors such as the presence of a suggested option, costs of taking an action, and awareness. We isolate the omission effect from confounding factors in three experiments, and find no evidence that the distinction between active and passive choices has an independent effect on the propensity to implement selfish outcomes. This suggests that increased selfishness through omission, as observed in various economic choice situations, is driven by other factors than a preference for selfish omissions.
机译:我们调查的是,如果个人能够被动地允许执行结果(遗漏)而不是做出主动选择(委托),那么他们是否更倾向于自私。在大多数情况下,主动选择和被动选择的选择在诸如建议选项的存在,采取行动的成本以及意识等因素方面有所不同。我们在三个实验中将遗漏效应与混杂因素隔离开来,没有证据表明主动选择和被动选择之间的区别对实现自私结果的倾向具有独立影响。这表明,在各种经济选择情况下观察到的通过遗忘导致的自私增加,是由其他因素驱动的,而不是偏向于自私的遗漏。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号